Carey Foster Bridge: Galvanometer & Its Opposite Deflections

  • Thread starter Thread starter anam89
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bridge
AI Thread Summary
The Carey Foster Bridge demonstrates opposite deflections in a galvanometer due to the arrangement of resistances and the voltage distribution across the bridge. When the bridge is balanced, the galvanometer shows no deflection; however, when unbalanced, the current direction changes, causing opposite deflections at each end. The behavior is influenced by the specific resistances in the circuit, which affect the potential difference experienced by the galvanometer. For a comprehensive understanding, a detailed examination of the bridge's configuration and the underlying principles of electrical circuits is essential. Further resources, such as the provided PDF, can offer in-depth explanations and visual aids.
anam89
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
why galvanometer gives opposite deflection on both of its ends in Carey Foster Bridge ?give me its full explanation and its reasons?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Given the terse way you posted the question - and that it looks like a school/homework question, I can guess you might be short of answers. I will go as far as providing you http://www.bitmesra.ac.in/departments/laboratory/physics/03%20&%2013%20Carey%20Foster%20bridge.pdf" .
It is a PDF file which, aside from the full explanations, has a graphic of a Carey-Foster bridge laid out.

Consider carefully what it takes to make a galvanometer deflect backwards in both those places. Then think what combinations of resistances, including the wire, would make voltages appear at those places to have that effect.

If this was a homework - type question, then this was not the place to post it! If inadvertently done, then try again in the place in the forum where lots of help will be available, provided you set out fully what you have tried, and what you understand of it so far.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread moved to Homework Help -- Intro Physics.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top